Several people ate the cake. I received numerous positive comments on it and some of them are about the flavor of the cake.
Owen > On Sep 29, 2023, at 14:11, Collider <[email protected]> wrote: > > Peering cake... :-) > > i think i was a puppy when that happened and only heard about it way after > the fact > > did anyone eat the cake? was it tasty? > > > Le 29 septembre 2023 20:55:00 UTC, Owen DeLong via NANOG <[email protected]> a > écrit : >> I have known Mike for many years. I have my disagreements with him and my >> criticisms of him. >> >> However, HE decided to stop their free bop tunnel services due to problems >> with abuse. A free service >> which becomes a magnet for problems isn’t long for this world. It’s >> unfortunate, but boils down to the >> usual fact that vandals are the reason the rest of us can’t have nice >> things. I have trouble seeing how >> one can blame Mike for that. >> >> HE has continued to operate their free tunnel service in general and still >> provides a very large number >> of free tunnels. They also provide a number of other services for free and >> at very reasonable prices. >> I don’t see very many major providers giving back to the community to the >> extent that HE does. >> >> At this point, if anyone should pay for IPv6 transit between Cogent and HE, >> Cogent should be the >> one paying as they have the (significantly) smaller and less connected IPv6 >> network. Mike is willing >> to peer with Cogent for free, just like any other ISP out there. He’s not >> asking Cogent for free >> transit. Cogent is the one with the selective peering policy. >> >> Owen >> >> Full disclosure, yes, I worked for HE for several years and I am a current >> HE customer. >> I am the person behind the (in)famous IPv6 Peering Cake. >> >> >> >>> On Sep 29, 2023, at 00:44, VOLKAN SALİH <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Many people from big companies/networks are either member of NANOG or >>> following/reading NANOG from archives. >>> >>> I was also going to ask if anyone / any company can sponsor (feeless) IPv4 >>> /24 prefix for my educational research network? (as209395) >>> >>> We do not do or allow SPAM/spoofing and other illegal stuff, we have RPKI >>> records and check RPKI of BGP peers. >>> >>> We also consider to have BGP session with HE.net <http://he.net/> and >>> CogentCo in the future, so we can re-announce their single-homed prefixes >>> to each other, as charity. For the good of everyone on the internet.. >>> >>> Mr. M.Leber from He.net <http://he.net/> also stopped feeless BGP tunnel >>> service, as he has not seen financial benefit, while still talking about >>> community-give-back?! And he still seeks feeless peering from CogentCo, you >>> get what you give.whatever goes around comes around >>> >>> Thanks for reading, best regards and wishes >>> >>> >>> >>> 29.09.2023 09:57 tarihinde Vasilenko Eduard yazdı: >>>> Well, it depends. >>>> The question below was evidently related to business. >>>> IPv6 does not have yet a normal way of multihoming for PA prefixes. >>>> If IETF (and some OTTs) would win blocking NAT66, >>>> Then /48 propoisiton is the proposition for PA (to support multihoming). >>>> Unfortunately, it is at least a 10M global routing table as it has been >>>> shown by Brian Carpenter. >>>> Reminder, The IPv6 scale on all routers is 2x smaller (if people would use >>>> DHCP and longer than/64 then the scale would drop 2x additionally). >>>> Hence, /48 proposition may become 20x worse for scale than proposed >>>> initially in this thread. >>>> Eduard >>>> From: NANOG [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> On Behalf Of Owen DeLong via NANOG >>>> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 7:11 AM >>>> To: VOLKAN SALİH <[email protected]> >>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> Subject: Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ? >>>> >>>> Wouldn’t /48s be a better solution to this need? >>>> >>>> Owen >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sep 28, 2023, at 14:25, VOLKAN SALİH <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> hello, >>>> >>>> I believe, ISPs should also allow ipv4 prefixes with length between >>>> /25-/27 instead of limiting maximum length to /24.. >>>> >>>> I also believe that RIRs and LIRs should allocate /27s which has 32 IPv4 >>>> address. considering IPv4 world is now mostly NAT'ed, 32 IPv4s are >>>> sufficient for most of the small and medium sized organizations and also >>>> home office workers like youtubers, and professional gamers and webmasters! >>>> >>>> It is because BGP research and experiment networks can not get /24 due to >>>> high IPv4 prices, but they have to get an IPv4 prefix to learn BGP in IPv4 >>>> world. >>>> >>>> What do you think about this? >>>> >>>> What could be done here? >>>> >>>> Is it unacceptable; considering most big networks that do >>>> full-table-routing also use multi-core routers with lots of RAM? those >>>> would probably handle /27s and while small networks mostly use default >>>> routing, it should be reasonable to allow /25-/27? >>>> >>>> Thanks for reading, regards.. >>>> >> > > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
